USGS Science⌕ Search

Geology topics

E.C. Morgan

Publications and source records attributed to E.C. Morgan.

2 recordsLinked to original sources

A case study of alternative site response explanatory variables in Parkfield, California

The combination of densely-spaced strong-motion stations in Parkfield, California, and spectral analysis of surface waves (SASW) profiles provides an ideal dataset for assessing the accuracy of different site response explanatory variables. We judge accuracy in terms of spatial coverage and correlation with observations. The performance of the alternative models is period-dependent, but generally we observe that: (1) where a profile is available, the square-root-of-impedance method outperforms V S30 (average S-wave velocity to 30 m depth), and (2) where a profile is unavailable, the topographic-slope method outperforms surficial geology. The fundamental site frequency is a valuable site response explanatory variable, though less valuable than V S30 . However, given the expense and difficulty of obtaining reliable estimates of V S30 and the relative ease with which the fundamental site frequency can be computed, the fundamental site frequency may prove to be a valuable site response explanatory variable for many applications.

California↗

Multiscale site-response mapping: A case study of Parkfield, California

The scale of previously proposed methods for mapping site-response ranges from global coverage down to individual urban regions. Typically, spatial coverage and accuracy are inversely related.We use the densely spaced strong-motion stations in Parkfield, California, to estimate the accuracy of different site-response mapping methods and demonstrate a method for integrating multiple site-response estimates from the site to the global scale. This method is simply a weighted mean of a suite of different estimates, where the weights are the inverse of the variance of the individual estimates. Thus, the dominant site-response model varies in space as a function of the accuracy of the different models. For mapping applications, site-response models should be judged in terms of both spatial coverage and the degree of correlation with observed amplifications. Performance varies with period, but in general the Parkfield data show that: (1) where a velocity profile is available, the square-rootof- impedance (SRI) method outperforms the measured VS30 (30 m divided by the S-wave travel time to 30 m depth) and (2) where velocity profiles are unavailable, the topographic slope method outperforms surficial geology for short periods, but geology outperforms slope at longer periods. We develop new equations to estimate site response from topographic slope, derived from the Next Generation Attenuation (NGA) database.

Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America↗